What Sorts of Features Differ Across The Wide Range of Price Points?

[JLeeSaxon]

Noob to large format (not to photography), thinking about dabbling a little. I'm looking for general knowledge here, not a specific recommendation for my needs.

I've read the "intro to LF cameras" articles, and I understand the basics like the various sheet sizes and the basic difference between a monorail and a field. But even within a given size/type of camera, prices can range from not-even-$200 to well into four figures, and other than basic stats like bellows draw and tilt/shift range I have no idea what the differentiators might be.

[Alan Klein]

Welcome to the forum. What's your budget?

[Gabe]

But even within a given size/type of camera, prices can range from not-even-$200 to well into four figures, and other than basic stats like bellows draw and tilt/shift range I have no idea what the differentiators might be.

- General quality of the construction
- Folding vs non-folding designs
- Materials (wood, metal, carbon fibre, plastic)
- Weight & size
- Rigidity & strength
- Precision of movements and which are available, their range, type (base vs axial tilts, symmetric vs asymmetric), gearing and so on.
- Maximum and minimum bellows draw
- Size of lens boards (most will be of the Linhof design)
- The range of available accessories

I wouldn't recommend something like an Intrepid as your first camera, as I think the imprecision inherent to that design is not ideal when learning the process. Something top end (Arca Swiss, Linhof) is probably overkill too. It all depends on your budget and requirements.

[Doremus Scudder]

There are some differences within the two broad categories you mention.

There are press cameras that fold, are usually metal and have more limited movements. Many of these have viewfinders and handles for hand-held use. Example: Speed Graphic.

Also metal and folding are the "technical" cameras, so-called because they have more movements and are very precisely engineered: Linhof Technika is an example of this type. They are usually more expensive, even used, due to demand and "cult status."

There are "bottom-of-the-line" wooden folding cameras that are kind of clunky, have more limited movements and may not be as nicely finished as others, but are very usable. The Intrepid fits into this category.

Full-featured field cameras, usually wooden folders, include the Chamonix, Wista, Tachihara (all still made) and a host of others, both new and used. Perhaps the priciest in this category was/is the Wisner Technical Field camera (only available used now). These are very in-demand cameras, which makes them more expensive, even used. They have varying features, but all have tilts and swings on both standards, shift on at least one standard and front rise. The Chamonix boasts lots of movements and a "universal" style bellows that is longer than most field cameras, making the use of longer and shorter focal-length lenses than usual for field cameras practical.

Entry-level monorail cameras like the Calumet and the Graphic View cameras are less in demand, but still very serviceable machines with a full range of movemnts. They can be had for cheap these days mostly because people don't like lugging heavier monorails around in the field. Those that use monorails for studio work only usually go with...

Full-featured monorails that are system cameras like Sinar cameras. They have interchangeable standards, bellows and rails that can be added together to make a very long camera or configured to make the camera very short. These have very precise geared movements and, often, tilt-angle indicators, asymmetrical and yaw-free movements (makes applying movements faster and easier) as well as a full range of accessories like viewfinders, etc. These are also expensive.

And, of course, there are lots of hybrid cameras that try to combine features. Larger wooden folding cameras that have long bellows and lots of movements are a portable compromise between the classic field camera and a monorail. On the other hand, there are lightweight monorails with less-precise (but lighter) construction that are meant to be carried more easily in the field (Sinar Alpina).

IM-HO, the best thing you can do before purchasing an LF camera is to really consider what kind of photography you plan on doing, do some research, and decide what style of camera best fits the kind(s) of photography you want to do. That will point you in a certain direction.

Then there are lenses: Heavy vs. light, bright vs. dim, big vs. small, more coverage vs less. But that's a topic for another thread

Best,

Doremus

[Oren Grad]

Tachihara (all still made)

Tachihara is long out of business.

[Vaughn]

...
IM-HO, the best thing you can do before purchasing an LF camera is to really consider what kind of photography you plan on doing, do some research, and decide what style of camera best fits the kind(s) of photography you want to do. That will point you in a certain direction...Doremus

Excellent. There are features on cameras that works great (or are just plain needed) for extensive architectural photography that can increase the price, weight and usefulness of a camera...but are not needed for a very functional landscape camera (which can still be used, perhaps, for occasional architecture pleasure.)

[paulbarden]

I wouldn't recommend something like an Intrepid as your first camera, as I think the imprecision inherent to that design is not ideal when learning the process. Something top end (Arca Swiss, Linhof) is probably overkill too. It all depends on your budget and requirements.

I disagree entirely. I find the Intrepid perfectly usable and it's designed to be a capable first-time-user camera. I still have my first edition 4x5 Intrepid (which left a lot to be desired, I will admit) and still use it, without any difficulty. The OP states that he is "thinking about dabbling a little" which suggests to me that he wants to know what 4x5 is like, but isn't committing to anything. Seems to me that spending $$$$ to "test the waters" isn't wise. That makes the Intrepid a perfectly viable option.

[Gabe]

That makes the Intrepid a perfectly viable option.

Viable, sure. I never meant to imply otherwise, and the price and weight are certainly in its favour. Nonetheless I think the somewhat crude nature of the Intrepid's movement controls introduce the potential for additional frustration and sources of error in what is already quite a steep learning curve for the initiate. In that respect it could be counterproductive and turn someone off the whole endeavour, for want of a more forgiving tool.

[Jim C.]

Doremus has covered it nicely, I think that if you're interested in 'dabbling' set a budget you're
willing to spend ( camera, lens, film holders, film developing chems and equipment ) and proceed from there.

[Jim Andrada]

My first LF camera was a monorail (Linhof Kardan Bi 5 x 7.) I carried it a lot of places and was never unhappy with it and 50 years later am still happily using it. The 4 x 5 Linhof Color is available 2nd hand for a couple or a few hundred dollars and is a perfectly usable camera. The general feeling that monorail cameras aren't suitable for field work is because the monorail makes them awkward to walk around with. When I got the Linhof I had a local machinist make up a short monorail, just long enough to allow the camera to be mounted on the tripod - problem 90% solved IMHO because I could carry the camera on the short rail and then attach a rail extension when I was setting up in a new location.